Looks like not seperating display and implementation to me.
What I meant was, this separation of UI and object isn't necessarily all its cracked up to be and just winds up relocating the coupling issues to exist across different levels of abstraction. Acknowledging this and putting the coupling where (the author believes) it belongs is the point of the articles.
Then please, enlighten me: What is OO? Don't use metaphors--I've read way too many of them, all of them unsatisfying. Saying traditional OO concepts (like accessors/mutators) aren't OO doesn't strike me as a useful definition.
So much OO code out there really amounts to procedural code with objects as (sometimes intelligent) datastructures. It is hard to find exemplars of OO code that can actually be described as implementing systems of interacting objects. Most really good OO systems are simply too large and complex to serve as teaching tools. However, if you are serious about exploring OO, see Booch's "Object Oriented Design with Applications" for an exception to this general rule.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: (OT) OOUI: multiple views in an object.
by Anonymous Monk
in thread (OT) OOUI: multiple views in an object.
by BUU
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |